Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense?  
User currently offlineJAM747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 550 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 12103 times:

It seems that eventually the all new 777-300 and 747 replacement wide body from Boeing will be called Y3. Would it make sense for Boeing to have such a replacement with a 747 like 'hump'? To me this would give Boeing the flexibility of having a large passenger widebody with double deck capability, plus a replacement for many 747 cargo aircraft especially for cargo carriers who need nose loading capability. I know the decision for Y3 is probably 10 to 15 yrs away and market and technology changes will really influence design. Versions of the 787 will eventually replace 767 and maybe 777-200 versions but what about the bigger Boeings? What do you guys and girls think?

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 12048 times:

I dont think it would have a hump but then again I am not completely sold over the fact that the a.neterz Proposed Y3 ( ranging from larger then 350-10XWB to the A388 size) will even be something that would sell well given that a larger XWB10-X or a 787-11 could well take the lower end of the market (given weight savings over a decade) whilest The 747-I holds on for about 8-10 years while the CASM for the heavier 787-11 and 350XWB-X become more favourable !! The market may fragment still !!

[Edited 2006-10-13 02:15:35]

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 12018 times:

If Y3 is 11 abreast, the crown space will be ample. I personally think a design where all crew operations are in the crown is a possibility. Cockpit, then pilot rest including W/C and avionics, then F/J prep galley, then Y ovens and storage galley, then crew rest including W/C.

Leaves entire main deck for pax, and the possibility of a nose door for a cargo version. Cargo version would cut the crown facilities off after smaller galley, for taller cargo like in current 747 design.

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 1):
the a.neterz Proposed Y3

It's a BOEING proposed Y3. Do your research.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11993 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
If Y3 is 11 abreast,

Oh, man. This would be a total nightmare.

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11974 times:

I know it is a boeing proposed Y3 but my reference was to the fact that it keeps comming up frequently in discussions here ( i use it aswell) , boeing had a product strategy following project 20xx into yellowstone however no where is it rigid and the next decade could change their plans either way

User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2303 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11931 times:

Quoting JAM747 (Thread starter):
It seems that eventually the all new 777-300 and 747 replacement wide body from Boeing will be called Y3.

Not that it matters much, but it's called the Y3 today. "Eventually" it will be called something else, e.g. 797 or 808.

Quoting JAM747 (Thread starter):
Would it make sense for Boeing to have such a replacement with a 747 like 'hump'?

I believe that putting a hump on it would, in people's mind, mean that it's "just another 747," "a composite 747," or "a 747 for the 21st century." Whether that is good or bad, I don't know.

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 1):
given that a larger XWB10-X or a 787-11 could well take the lower end of the market

I'm no aircraft engineer, but I would guess that a 787-11 would be stretching the airplane too far. They will probably have to strengthen the airframe a lot, and thereby adding a lot of weight.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
If Y3 is 11 abreast,

If Wikipedia is correct ("Y3 will cover 300 passengers and beyond"), then I believe that 11-abreast will be too wide. The airplane would probably end up being extremely short if it's going to be so wide.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11884 times:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...general_aviation/read.main/2720544


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11828 times:

Boeing originally put the hump there so the cargo can enter the nose with the cockpit on top, per original USAF C-5 proposal aircraft.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
Quoting Bringiton (Reply 1):
the a.neterz Proposed Y3

It's a BOEING proposed Y3. Do your research.

Boeing's Y3 is just a study it has no form, a few A.netters that act as armchair engineers and armchair-market analysts will somehow EXPECT things of the new airplane, if it is to exist. I can make up numbers, combine them with power and drag graphs, come up with a range and endurance parameter, etc -- all with out a shape. Preliminary engineering has nothing to do with image, it is all definition. Does anyone realize how much logic is lost when things are assumed? According to Boeing, (not wikipedia - I don't trust that shit), Y3 as it stands is for the 300-600 pax range - it is a range, nothing is set. Standard tube'n wing has its limits, which I would suppose people are familiar with stretching aircraft. But to insist that is how it will be deserves a beating, IMO.

What if an aircraft's cross-section varied throughout its length, any capacity possibilites there? This may be Boeing's last big aircraft, it will have to take the test of time, unless the world population suddenly explodes, Boeing has more than enough time to deicde if need be.

I'm not going to entertain the traditionalists with dreams of an oversized 777.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 11734 times:

Quoting SNATH (Reply 3):
Oh, man. This would be a total nightmare.

How so? 11 abreast would be 3-5-3. Many 777s already have 5 seat center blocks.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 5):
I'm no aircraft engineer, but I would guess that a 787-11 would be stretching the airplane too far. They will probably have to strengthen the airframe a lot, and thereby adding a lot of weight.

Strength is not the issue. Stiffness is the issue. CFRP is naturally very stiff. Anyway, a B787-11 would still be shorter than the A340-600 and have a taller fuselage. There may be other reasons to not build a B787-11, but fuselage strength and stiffness are not among them.


User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 11722 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 8):
How so? 11 abreast would be 3-5-3.

Are you kidding me? Three "prisoner" seats per row? YIKES!  scared 

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 8):
Many 777s already have 5 seat center blocks.

Yes, and I prefer them over the 3-3-3 config since I can get on the 2 seats by the window.... But, 3-5-3? AAAAARGH! Let me out! NOW!  Smile

Tony



Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3247 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 11714 times:

PS Seriously, now, is there a real chance of the A380 going 3-5-3 downstairs? Does anyone know if any airlines planning this config for it?


Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11471 times:

Quoting SNATH (Reply 10):
Seriously, now, is there a real chance of the A380 going 3-5-3 downstairs? Does anyone know if any airlines planning this config for it?

The seats would be about as narrow as 9 abreast in an A330. Also, it would have a serious negative affect on payload/range performance.


User currently offlineKBFIspotter From United States of America, joined May 2005, 729 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 11412 times:

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 7):
Boeing originally put the hump there so the cargo can enter the nose with the cockpit on top, per original USAF C-5 proposal aircraft.

Not quite true... Boeing transfered much of the design team from the CHX competition over to the 747 program when Boeing lost the competition to Lockheed, and that is where the simularities end. Per Joe Sutter's book, the hump was designed for the sole purpose of allowing straight in loading of cargo, and it was only going to be for the flight deck. It was Juan Trippe of Pan Am who decided that the space behind the flight deck should be used for pax.



Proud to be an A&P!!!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Would EWR(+IAH)-HNL-SYD On CO Make Sense? posted Sat Dec 10 2005 05:13:04 by Ikramerica
Would It Make Sense For WN To Move To A At Cle? posted Sat Feb 9 2002 21:53:41 by N766UA
Would A CLE-AMS Flight Make Sense? posted Sat Dec 1 2001 04:27:41 by Ahlfors
Would Boeing Open 2nd 777 Line? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 04:37:58 by BoeingFever777
Does It Make Sense To Add A Runway To EWR? posted Thu Aug 3 2006 01:29:01 by JEdward
Do American Airlines Hubs Make Sense? posted Fri Jul 21 2006 19:29:28 by Eastern023
What Would Gol Do With 101 737NG?! posted Mon Jun 26 2006 21:55:26 by Thering
Boeing 737 With Afterburners/Reheat (Vid) posted Fri Jun 23 2006 22:23:54 by Leezyjet
How Boeing Did With The 744 EIS Delay? posted Wed Jun 14 2006 20:47:01 by FCKC
FKB-STR...does That Make Sense? posted Wed Apr 26 2006 17:06:40 by Gearup380